I want to revisit some of the ideas I was fumbling to elucidate in my earlier post about the Cloverfield marketing. Cloverfield was an excellent ignition for some thoughts I've had on this topic for a while, and they were equally stirred up again today whilst reading about the concerns in Hollywood now with how to market The Dark Knight , particularly some of the comments on the issue over at Defamer . For TDK the issue is around the centrality of Ledger's apparently powerful performance to the marketing campaign, and whether that is appropriate, post mortem. My feeling is that it is completely appropriate to continue as planned. It is openly acknowledged that Ledger put a lot of himself into the role, and he would want that role valued and given the attention it deserves. All the more so now that he has died and it is his last role. Appropriateness is a thin veil for what is really at issue for the studio though. After all, it is appropriate to cry when someone dies, but i...

Cloverfield seems to have done quite well at the box office over the weekend, doing $46 million in the US, which is comparable to Peter Jackson's King Kong opening, reports the LA Times . I find it interesting in these sort of articles how the explanations for the success of films like this, are pretty meagre. Cloverfield only cost $25 million to make, so its already broken even in that respect, although apparently the marketing campaign cost more then production. The reasoning given by the Times for its success... it was pet project of the a studio exec, and the good 'buzz' generated on the Internet was reinforced by good reviews. Two important questions are not really answered. What made it a good movie? What made people think it would be a good movie before they saw it? Apparently its a good movie because people went to see it, and people went to see it because its a good move. And people say Hollywood isn't insightful! The other reasons given for it's succes...